MasterChief

Unfortunately I don't know the backstory of the "M" collection. These books are nice PF specimens. Well preserved they are -- same look, feel and smell. Here's a couple more... -6.jpg' alt='rolleyes.gif' alt='9_9'>-6.jpg'>

Great pickup, GT! I recognize the grease pencil mark.

Yeah, it is neat to see how a reprint cover differs from the original. Sal Buscema's interpretation of FF#51 for the cover of MGC#38 is simply awesome.

That's similar to the various "updated reprints" of the Romance books that came out around the same time. The covers were slightly different with new colors, but kept the PF format. Interesting stuff. I was poking around my office today and came across a cover proof of Our Love Story #29. OLS#29 is a reprint of OLS#17, which was published right smack-dab middle of the picture-frame timeline (June-72). Our Love Story #17 Cover Artist: Sal Buscema

Wow... some great stuff posted since my last visit. Simply incredible books -- especially the 25¢ 52-page Square Bounds uploaded by GT. Totally Amazing~! And I just love the Sub-Mariner picture-frames. Dramatic and powerfully dynamic. I can stare at those covers for hours. The artwork was the baited hook. Who cared about the interior content...? I would buy these books just for the cover's sake. And to stay on point, here's a couple more... to include one that was robbed of a higher grade.

Hmmm... very interesting. Thx for the point of clarification, JC. So let me get your POV on a couple of covers that break the mold during the timeframe. ASM#113 doesn't cut it, ASM#114 does, and then ASM#115 is loosely representative. 113 &115 are not included in the registry list. CA#155, which is framed by a circle and also loosely represents the design, is included in the registry. Seems to me if one includes CA#155 then ASM#115 would warrant inclusion too. Thoughts?

Nice. Is that your book up on ComicLink right now?

Yeah, I also agree. Cat #1 fits the design concept and should be given due consideration as a picture frame. I guess Big John Verpoorten, Marvel's production manager at the time, was asleep in the Bullpen during that one. As far as Fear #5 goes... Yep, I think consideration should be given to this book, too. It was issued in the first month of picture-frame production and the artwork layout is not indicative of Marvel's full-bleed cover design of the preceding period. I believe this is one of those "tweeners". It certainly doesn't fit the ridged picture-frame design but the artistic concept and relationship is somewhat apparent. The cover is oddly indicative of MS#2, which was produced three months later. Perhaps being a quarterly publication, Fear #5's cover may have been one of the first initial picture-frame layout produced, and then the picture-frame design evolved from that point. Dunno for sure, just a thought. In any event, if you slightly modify the layout of Fear #5 by incorporating a left-hand margin, then place the story title under the frame, and finally alter the production stats, the book starts to take on a more apparent picture-frame appearance.

That's pretty cool, GT. As an interesting side project, I'm currently mapping all the books to the corresponding months that they were issued, to include cover artists, in spreadsheet format. Interesting visual from a production perspective as one can see where the monthlies, bi-monthlies, quarterlies, annuals, and specials fell out over the course of the production timeline. I did note that Gemma's list may be missing some titles/books that may be candidates for picture-frame consideration. JC mentioned as much a few posts back when he posted a list. These books were produced during the timeframe but have certain layout nuances that don't conform to the ridged picture-frame design. A couple examples include Fear #5 and Cat #1.

Interesting stuff, Greg. Guess I lucked out that show and beat you sharks to some of the Rosa picture-frames that day.

Unfortunately, no. I had two cracks at the Rosa collection when it premiered at the SD Comic-Con. The first day I pulled a variety of early Bronze Age Marvel Horror books. After the show, I went back to the hotel and got acquainted with my new find. I was so smitten by the books that the next day my focus was on buying more. I must have pulled a two-foot stack of early Marvel bronze the following day. Unfortunately, my desire wrote a check my wallet couldn't cash, and I had to leave half the stack on the convention floor, having busted my comic-buying budget. Whether or not ML#14 or MSE#4 was in that stack left behind, I just don't remember. That said, I have seen some of the other books that have since come to market... and I kick myself each and every time for not breaking the bank by buying them all. Here's a couple more 52-page square bound picture-frame Rosa's. Not the highest quality, but mighty fine specimens nonetheless...

Ya gotta love the Rosa Books! Seems that rascal knew how to pick 'em of the ol' spinner rack. Here's a few Raw Rosa's for ya...

Beautiful books, JP~!

Jeepers, GT... them thar books are amazing! And that Kane cover for MMW#18 is way cool. It’s been said that Kane drew over 40% of the picture frames during the period that the cover concept was in production (Nov '71 – Dec '72). There is no doubt that Gil Kane was a driver in the picture frame design. The artwork speaks specifically to the Kane style. In fact, here's an interesting side note. During a 1999 Comic Book Artist interview with John Romita, John was asked specifically about the Marvel cover designs in the early '70s: CBA: The cover designs of Marvel Comics in the early '70s conformed to a rigid format. There suddenly was just a square for an illustration with the title of the story underneath, with a lot of verbiage around. Do you remember this really locked-in design when Gil [Kane] did most of the covers? John: We did it for about a year, with a margin in it. They were looking to stand out from the rest of the crowd. I think Roy [Thomas] was involved. I think Gil might've designed it. I don't remember how much input I had on it; all I remember–that may have been when I was doing special projects. CBA: Were you involved with the overall look of the books? John: No, the only thing I was ever involved in was if they had a guy who they didn't think told the story clearly, or well enough, they'd ask me to talk to him. I never was in favor of the look of the books, or the techniques particularly... ...I know the covers that Roy, Gil and I did together–Roy would use Gil as his volume man; in other words, we'd get together once a week or two weeks, and plot out a bunch of covers. We would go over The Avengers, Captain America, and all the other titles that needed some hype, creative design, and big profile characters. So, Gil would do a very quick ball-point pen sketch on a pad, and Roy would tell him to do this, make the figure bigger, make the figure smaller, turn it that way, and he'd ask me, and I'd say, "Yeah, why don't you reverse it?" and that kind of stuff. Then Gil would go home and do the pencils in two days for five or six covers, send them in, and then I would be given the problem of making them accurate, because the costumes were invariably irregular and needed correcting (some characters had a cloak on who shouldn't, and vise-versa). Gil's pet trick was all of his background characters had circles with dots for eyes, and I would have to put some flesh into them, some hair and coats and put bags of groceries in some woman's hands. Gil was in such a hurry to turn these covers out that I used to grumble; but it was in the interest of speed, and I certainly didn't disagree with Roy, because I thought we couldn't get that much work out of anybody else, and we might as well do it with Gil. He had such a flair for covers–and, as you might know, many a great artist doesn't translate into a great cover artist. For instance, I think John Buscema, as much as I admire him–and I would kill to be able to draw like him–was not a good cover man; he didn't think in terms of covers. Some guys had a flair for covers, and Gil was one of those. Roy harnessed that power, and I helped by filling in a lot of details, and making a lot of adjustments. Gil had a tendency to make everybody six-foot-nine... Great interview. Lots of insight into the glory days. As a matter of study, here's an interesting illustration that depicts the original Kane art and the final production copy for MMW#18...

Great thread with equally incredible books. I dig these beautiful books. IMO, the picture frames, or sometimes referred to as box covers, are some of the best examples of dynamic cover artwork that “pops” off the 4-color cover (a 3-D type effect). It was a marketing concept employed by Marvel to hook prospective buyers and drive the bottom line. Artistically simple yet amazingly effective. The marketing strategy worked and enabled Marvel to surpass DC in overall sales.

You can secure from general quarters, Rob. No pitchforks here. Since everyone understands the census isn’t accurate, perhaps I should have just posted a link to CGC’s legal notice as a reminder. http://www.cgccomics.com/legal_notice.asp

Totally agree with you in mentioning census and re-subs in the same breath. I wish, however, that I could share your confidence in the census, but I simply cannot. After several years of conducting in-depth research on literally thousands of certification numbers and comic book related transactions, I have come to the conclusion that the census is misleading and unreliable. Collectors, sellers, dealers, manipulators, and scammers have removed an unimaginable number of books from their holders without notifying CGC. In fact, CGC themselves have failed to update the census on occasion when books were recertified. Case in point. The Batman #11 book that was originally graded Universal 7.5; manipulated (trimmed) and then recertified as Universal 8.0; recalled after being identified as trimmed in the marketplace; and then subsequently recertified a 3rd time as Restored 8.0, is represented twice in the census. This is but one example.

If you were talking about Bronze age or later, I'd agree with you.... Even late Silver... But I don't think that argument holds for books like FF #3 vs 4 or 5, not 10+ years after CGC. Besides....all we *really* have to analyze is the census, and even that's off. Everything else is anecdotal. I think collecting experience counts for something...and I'm fine with anecdotal answers. I realize there isn't a single resource to determine scarcity, thus the question here to those who would know best. (thumbs u Fair enough. One thing I've learned, having not only the CGC census, but the PCGS and NGC censuses (censi..?) before that, is that the items that are worth slabbing tend to get slabbed, eventually....even the rarest, and most valuable items...end up in slabs, just because that's the way the market has headed. (Two of the three privately owned 1913 Liberty Nickels have resided in both PCGS and NGC slabs, for example.) So, while the census is never exactly correct, unless we're dealing with tiny numbers, it is, for items that are worth slabbing, a generally reliable indicator of what really exists in what general grades. I can say, with fairly good data to back me up, that books like FF #3 are probably rarer in all grades than #4 and #5, simply because it has lower population numbers. And this information lines up with the conventional wisdom of comic collecting...that is, when FF #3 had come out, it was the only Marvel superhero book on the market, DC was king, and collectors in past decades scorned "non #1s" legendarily. So it's easy to understand how such a book might not survive to this day in numbers as great as, say, #4 or #5, which feature stellar villain debuts (and those buying #4 off the rack weren't likely to know that Subby had been around for 20+ years by that point.) 10+ years into the census, and it's now just starting to gel into reliable trends and indicators, especially for keys, popular characters, and Gold and Silver in general. Not precise....but reliable nonetheless. If it took 10 years for 373 copies of FF #3 (which includes resubs)...it's pretty unlikely that another 75 or so are going to show up before another #4 or #5 or three does. One would be wise to exercise caution when utilizing the CGC census as a yardstick to measure "scarcity" or quality/quantity of certified books. Although the certification database is populated on the front end with initial certification, there is absolutely no way to reconcile the database on the backend to reflect an accurate census. Reason being, when a book goes through subsequent recertification the label or more precisely the certification number is the linchpin for population report accuracy. Unless the current certification label for a given resubmission is returned, the population report is subject to inaccuracies and may in fact be completely misleading. As time goes by (ten years as mentioned) the level of resubmissions compounds without label returns (owners, dealers and manipulators cracking books but fail to return labels), and the reliability and accuracy of the census continues to degrade. So much so, the population report for a good many issues will, or already has, become completely compromised and invalid.

Totally agree - there are so many people here we are all fortunate to have on our side, and Mark is certainly one of the good guys. Well done Mark (thumbs u I concur. Nicely done, Mark. Your courage and commitment to battle fraud is admirable!

Oh… I see. Well then, props to Frankiecastle~! (thumbs u

I love it~! Just look at the location of that date stamp. Pure visibility. Great find, Red~!

Lots of great books lately so might as well add one myself...and have a cigar while I'm at it. No... let's make that two ci-gars!!

wish i had the one you got, but i did go on the site and get the 216. thanks for the heads-up that there were others. Good for you! And congratulations -- that book is a beauty too!

Thx, Guys. Appreciate the feedback~! (thumbs u